Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 18, 2015, 06:39:27 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 624
26  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: 2016 Florida senate race, democratic primary on: April 16, 2015, 08:13:46 pm
Alan Grayson
27  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Deal Reached on Fast-Track Authority for TPP on: April 16, 2015, 08:06:58 pm
If anybody here should be upset, it is me Smiley Because if anybody is going to get hurt, it is Mexico: we are in a direct competition with China, and we are going to loose much of the privilleged access given by NAFTA.

But I am happy.

China is not a part of this deal, thankfully. In fact, I think the main reason Obama is for it is that it draws America's East Asian allies into a closer multilateral cooperation with us, while the economic consequences are a wash. He wants to deter China from trying to push the U.S. out of the region.
28  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: hillary campaign will accept lobbyist donations on: April 16, 2015, 07:16:55 pm
Disappointing - if Obama can run successful campaigns without accepting lobbyist donations, I don't see why Hillary can't.

It's funny, Bill DeBlasio was actually Hillary's campaign manager then:

In response, Mrs. Clinton's campaign manager, Bill de Blasio, wrote a letter to Mr. Lazio's campaign manager, Bill Dal Col, that said Mrs. Clinton would take up the challenge only if Mr. Lazio secures written promises that independent political organizations that support his campaign would cease negative advertising and other attacks against her. Mr. de Blasio also said Mr. Lazio would have to release his income tax returns, something he has repeatedly promised to do this summer. President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton released their tax return in April.
29  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Neoliberal corporatist Hillary swings wildly to the left after feet held to fire on: April 16, 2015, 06:53:28 pm
I don't think it's really so farfetched that she has genuine center-left economic convictions, given the issues (health care, children, women's rights) that have been consistent for her for over 40 years. But at the end of the day, you're right, I don't really give a sh__ what's in Hillary's heart of hearts, which is something none of us will ever find out anyway (same goes for any other pol). I care that she'll be a strong advocate for working families because it'll be in her interest as a Democrat. I do think she was to the left of Obama on economics in 2007-08, but very few people noticed, in part because the economic collapse was only looming then and not yet realized.

Here is an article about Hillary's time on Walmart's board. Walton needed a woman on the board so he brought her on, and she agreed, a position that amounted to about four meetings a year. She was not Walton's first choice, she was the only woman, she was young, she was an outsider, and by all accounts she was the only liberal on the board. Walton hated unions and by all accounts, every other member on the board was against them. She did not speak out for unions. She did use her position to successfully push for more environmentally friendly stores, and she pushed for women's representation with very limited results. Then she left.

As an aside, at the time Hillary accepted the position, Wal-Mart was already within 2 years of toppling Sears Roebuck as the nation's largest retailer. Arkansas is one of the poorest states in the country, and here is a huge local company (whose revenues today are over 4 1/2 times state GDP), probably more modest in 1988, but still. It's not like she picked some obscure, unimportant anti-union company and sought them out as representative of the type of company she'd like to sit on the board of.
30  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Are you going to join Hillary? on: April 16, 2015, 04:41:26 pm
I'm a gay, white male. So obviously....no.

So is Hillary's campaign manager.
31  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Neoliberal corporatist Hillary swings wildly to the left after feet held to fire on: April 16, 2015, 03:07:39 pm
Yes, I'm sure she's completely controlled by donations that amount to literally 0.2% of her expected total fundraising...
32  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why Hillary is inevitable in the primary (Effortpost inside) on: April 16, 2015, 12:40:42 pm
kal sort of has a point, too. Anyone who lived through Howard Dean's Joe Trippi/Meetup.com summer 2003 campaign, capped up with a baseball-bat themed "September to Remember" fundraising drive, and then endorsements from SEIU and AFSCME, where he almost literally came out of nowhere in April to a commanding lead in the New Hampshire primary -- only to see it all collapse within weeks, will always be impressed with the volatility of polls. Not to mention Hillary's own turnaround from a 30-37 (and worse) deficit the Saturday before the New Hampshire primary to a 3-point victory.
33  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Neoliberal corporatist Hillary swings wildly to the left after feet held to fire on: April 16, 2015, 10:53:03 am
Why do people refuse to understand the concept of rhetoric? What she says on the campaign trail is not necessarily what her policy goals will end up being.

Oh, I definitely agree that she should be backing up her rhetoric with concrete policy proposals that actually move the needle in a significant way. I think people are more surprised that she's talking about income inequality than they should be, because that big element of her '08 campaign was generally ignored.
34  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Neoliberal corporatist Hillary swings wildly to the left after feet held to fire on: April 16, 2015, 10:48:01 am
"Let's finally do something about the growing economic inequality that is tearing our country apart," she said. "The top 1% of our households hold 22% of our nation's wealth. That is the highest concentration of wealth in a very small number of people since 1929. So let's close that gap. Let's start holding corporate America responsible, make them pay their fair share again. Enough with the corporate welfare. Enough with the golden parachutes. And enough with the tax incentives for companies to shift jobs overseas."

... in June 2007.

Echoing Elizabeth Warren, she said,

"We've had millions of Americans just drop out of the labor force," she said. "Corporate profits, however, are at a 40-year high. So here we contrast very high corporate profits, and the average American family has lost $1,000 in income in the last seven years...we face new threats that neither the president nor federal regulators have adequately acknowledged or addressed...I don't think we'd be comfortable with our own government speculating in real estate or buying up companies, and we should be doubly uncomfortable with the idea of a foreign government doing these things in our country...Finally, we need to start addressing the risks posed by derivatives and other complex financial products... We cant let Wall Street send the bill to your street."

... in November 2007.

Who is this new Hillary?
35  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why Hillary is inevitable in the primary (Effortpost inside) on: April 16, 2015, 10:24:14 am
Excellent post, IceSpear. The case for Hill dog's victory is indeed strong.
36  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery on: April 16, 2015, 10:19:06 am
I) Fundraising

Myth #1: Hillary was a financial juggernaut in 2007-2008, with Obama running on a shoestring budget.

Fact: Obama outraised her multiple times, occasionally by blowout margins. And this wasn't only towards the end of the primary, he was outraising her as early as Q2 of 2007. There's simply no evidence that Obama had any trouble whatsoever keeping competitive with fundraising, which is a hallmark of a serious candidate.

Now, does anyone seriously believe any of the D-list candidates currently running against her are capable of being competitive with Hillary in fundraising? As I type this, Hillary is raising ungodly amounts of money from the Democratic donor class, which this time is nearly unanimously behind her (more on this point later.) Meanwhile, O'Malley, Chafee, and the rest are all dithering in their exploratory committees. That's just making their already inescapable hole even deeper.

Myth #2: Money doesn't mean everything! <insert example here>.

Fact: Yes, there are examples of candidates who got drastically outspent winning. But those are the exceptions that prove the rule. Most of the time, the better funded candidate wins. And even in cases where the candidate with less money won, they still usually had enough to at least stay competitive. That will not be so this time. Hillary is going to completely demolish the competition in terms of fundraising. It will not be remotely close.

II) Establishment Support

Myth #3: The Democratic establishment overwhelmingly backed Hillary in 2007, just like they're doing now.

Fact: The Democratic establishment was in no way united behind Hillary. Not only is this clear from the fundraising figures above, it is also clear from endorsements. In case you guys forgot, Ted Kennedy was a huge backer of Obama. Many other Democratic politicians backed him as well. Hillary had more endorsements overall, but it was not anything close to unanimous. As for Hillary, at this point in 2007 she had the support of a single Senator. This time she has the support of 27 Senators before she even declared her campaign, more than a majority of the Democratic caucus. Yeah, #Hillaryover50. As for her "competition", they have nothing. In Maryland, both Senators have endorsed Hillary. Same for the Senators and Governors in Virginia and Rhode Island. Sanders' Senate colleague has endorsed Hillary. If none of these people can win endorsements from high ranking politicians in their home states, where exactly are they going to do so?

III) Polling

Myth #4: Hillary was polling just as strong/almost as strong in 2007/2008 as she was now.

Fact: Hillary's poll numbers aren't even in the same universe now as they were in 2007/2008. I will illustrate using the RCP averages.

(For the purposes of this thread, I will be ignoring Elizabeth Warren's support since she is clearly not running. Some might scoff at this, but if anything it's TOO generous to the non Hillary candidates, since three separate pollsters (Marist, CNN, and YouGov) have all confirmed that Hillary actually gains the most when Warren is excluded. Not surprising when you consider the gender factor. However, since I have no way of knowing what the actual breakdown is, I will simply ignore it entirely.)

National, April 16th 2007: Clinton +9
National, April 16th 2015: Clinton +48
Swing: Clinton +39

Iowa, April 16th 2007: Edwards +3 (!)
Iowa, April 16th 2015: Clinton +48
Swing: Clinton +51

New Hampshire, April 16th 2007: Clinton +8
New Hampshire, April 16th, 2015: Clinton +44
Swing: Clinton +36

South Carolina, April 16th 2007: Clinton +7
South Carolina, April 16th 2015: Clinton +43
Swing: Clinton +36

The numbers speak for themselves. You're either insane or willfully ignorant if you think Hillary's numbers in the 2008 cycle are anywhere near what they are now.

Myth #5: Okay, Hillary leads by a huge margin, but it's only because of name recognition.

Fact: Name recognition is a part of her leads, but it can't explain them away, or even greatly reduce them for that matter. If it's only because of name recognition, why is she crushing Biden everywhere who has name recognition just as high? If it's only because of name recognition, why is she demolishing Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, Andrew Cuomo, Mark Warner, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Russ Feingold, etc. in their home states when most Democrats in those states know who they are and like them? Hell, she even stomps Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts, and I would consider her a viable opponent against Hillary.

Myth #6: Okay, people are polling horribly now, but they can come out of nowhere just like Obama did.

Fact: Obama did not "come out of nowhere." He was widely talked up as a potential candidate after his 2004 DNC speech. And the fundraising figures and polling numbers show he did not begin as a nonentity once he entered the race either. He immediately gathered a solid base of support (both among the electorate and donor base), unlike the clique of literal 1%ers currently running against Hillary. Just see for yourself how high he was polling even in the early stages of the race through those links from earlier.

IV) Miscellaneous

Myth #7: Well, Hillary got destroyed in 2008, so she's clearly vulnerable anyway

Fact: No, it was actually the closest presidential primary campaign in history, and she arguably won the popular vote. And this was against a stellar candidate like Obama. Considering that, what exactly can Lincoln Chafee do against a FAR stronger Hillary?

Myth #8: She was inevitable in 2008 too!

Fact: This was a retrospective media narrative based off no evidence at the time, simply because "David beats Goliath" sounds a lot more interesting than "strong 2nd place defeats frontrunner", and to simultaneously lionize Obama and bask in the defeat of their hated nemesis Hillary. If you need evidence, read this. The author went back and delved into news stories from 2007-2008, and references to Hillary's "inevitability" were very thin, particularly after Obama entered the race. It's simply not based in reality.

However, even if they did describe her that way, that would simply reflect the idiocy of the media rather than showing anything about Hillary, because of the polling numbers above. How exactly would someone leading by mere single digits nationally and in NH/SC, but TRAILING in Iowa be "inevitable"? The answer is that they wouldn't be, and anyone who described them that way is literally retarded. But again, very few people did.

Myth #9: But Democrats/liberals/progressives/the left/the base/minorities hate Hillary!

Fact: No, they actually all love her. Read the crosstabs of any Hillary favorability poll for proof. I'm sorry, but your personal hatred of Hillary Clinton does not speak for the entire Democratic Party, as much as you wish it to be so. As for minorities, a little noticed fact is that African Americans are one of her strongest core groups of support now, and she cleaned Obama's clock amongs Hispanics in the 2008 primary, another inconvenient fact that went down the memory hole.

Myth #10: I'm an annoying Hillary hack because I consistently point out stubborn facts

Fact: No, actually most of my detractors are the hacks. All of the empirical evidence is on my side, while all the anti-Hillary hacks have is their own wishful thinking.

V) Conclusion

Hillary is inevitable. Get over it.

37  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: President Obama to support removing Cuba from terrorist sponsors list on: April 15, 2015, 07:40:35 pm
re. Snowden: He's a traitor that literally committed treason and should be prosecuted under the fullest extent of the law. His dissemination of the information he stole can be described as nothing less than careless, and he has undermined the US's soft-power and counter-surveillance capabilities on the world stage.

I'll agree with Snowdon prosecution the day Keith Alexander (former NSA head) is prosecuted for mass spying of citizens without court mandate.

Not to mention lying to Congress.

I can understand why Snowden must be prosecuted. If he wasn't, then it would basically send a signal that anyone can just steal all of the NSA's files, and escape consequences (If that's the case, what's the point of secrecy?), but he did do a lot of good as well, and it was due solely to the unknown abuses and dishonesty of the NSA.
38  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: President Obama to support removing Cuba from terrorist sponsors list on: April 15, 2015, 07:06:53 pm
Honestly, Obama's new Cuba policy is probably one of the best things to come from his Presidency.

Indeed. And it's something that Hillary pushed for years. But really I don't give either of them too much credit for this no-brainer move that should have/would have happened 20 years ago if not for the Miami Cuban lobby.
39  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Are you going to join Hillary? on: April 15, 2015, 07:03:52 pm
Of course.
40  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: 2016: Hillary Clinton vs. Dick Cheney on: April 15, 2015, 04:22:08 pm
I like WalterMitty. If you don't know him well enough that this surprises you, you haven't been on the forum long enough...
41  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Should the US have entered WW2 Earlier? on: April 15, 2015, 02:31:38 pm
This thread is absurd - of course in retrospect, the West should have invaded Germany in 1933 to get rid of Hitler. I should have also played the Powerball numbers 1 12 32 42 58 12 last week.

At the time, the West behaved more or less reasonably.
42  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Clinton supports constitutional amendment against money in politics on: April 15, 2015, 12:00:09 pm
FDR was wealthy. I don't care if it's Bill Gates, if he/she is taking the positions I favor, then I'm going to be for that. My bigger concern is that if it takes a constitutional amendment, it would only happen if a significant number of Republicans agree that it's needed. Perhaps if we remember that it'd also restrict the donations of Democratic billionaires like George Soros?
43  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Rand Paul on: April 14, 2015, 10:41:09 pm
The least bad Republican, IMO.
44  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary's logo is an arrow pointing to the right on: April 14, 2015, 09:24:33 pm
Why did she create a logo that looks like the flag of Cuba?

omgz she's a secret communist! saul alinsky!
45  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Christie backs means testing of Social Security, raising retirement age on: April 14, 2015, 09:24:08 pm
Well he has to do something to be relevant again.
46  General Politics / Individual Politics / Hillary Clinton vs. Dick Cheney vs. David Duke on: April 14, 2015, 09:16:57 pm
Since the last poll didn't have enough options:

I would vote for David Duke over both of these morons
47  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary running as Elizabeth Warren on: April 14, 2015, 08:12:04 pm
She's always been populist. One of the central themes of her 2008 run was her focus on helping "invisible Americans".
48  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Krugman: It Takes a Party on: April 14, 2015, 04:29:24 pm
Krugman was right about the core economics issues at the critical moment, 2008-2012. He was right that the stimulus was insufficient. He was right to popularize anti-austerity economics. I remember for a time, he was the only major, and certainly the only "respectable" voice, speaking out against austerity economics. I think it was his blog, more than any other individual effort, that turned the tide (of course, historical events had more impact) in terms of starting to create an alternative economic narrative coming out of the Global Financial Crisis. Because when it first hit, the Rothbardites, Randites, Schiffites, Paulites, and 5000 Year Leapites were ready with an explanation that they'd been developing for years, and dominated the initial discussion. So Krugman gets enormous credit.

And yes, his debate with Niall Ferguson over whether QE would raise or lower bond yields was more significant than the Internet. If Ferguson had been right, there would have been a panic in the U.S. Treasury market, and the resulting meltdown would have made the Great Depression look like the 2001 recession (with all the political ramifcations).

I believe he endorsed Hillary in 2008 because he knows she's more progressive on economics than Obama.
49  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Are you depressed about the fact that Hillary will be the democratic nominee? on: April 14, 2015, 08:28:05 am
Well I didn't accept it in early 2013, but I'm closer to accepting it now. I think that's rational.
50  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Rand Paul: the war on drugs fosters a culture of violence on: April 13, 2015, 10:41:45 pm
RIP Rand Paul
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 624

Login with username, password and session length


Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines